This is interesting. What do you think about including in the consideration set the ability for this community's location to have a positive impact on the world? For example, moving to a poor area in need of external income or an area where westerns have a negative bias? There could be some secondary and tertiary benefits to this community.

This is really interesting, thanks for sharing Michael.

What do you see as the biggest risks to this model? I.e., if it's broadly adopted, what might be some of the consequences?

These are great questions to raise. What do you think of the challenge around knowing what to measure? I see a bigger problem beyond 'can we create a good RCT' as 'do we even know the right questions to ask ourselves about what to measure?' For example, if you test literacy increase between two education outcomes, but leave off a gender component and don't realize that one outcome is 300% better at helping girls stay in school, how do evaluators realize that? This seems especially complex when it comes to animal rights where its much harder to engage end beneficiaries in the conversation. Interested in your take.